Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
In Re S (Children) and Re W (Care Orders) [2002] UKHL 10, the Court of Appeal undertook a very radical reinterpretation of provisions of the Children Act 1989. The House of Lords reversed this: the opinion of Lord Nicholls provides very useful early guidance on the use of the HRA 1998, s 3:

'In applying section 3 courts must be ever mindful of this outer limit. The Human Rights Act reserves the amendment of primary legislation to Parliament … Interpretation of statutes is a matter for the courts; the enactment of statutes, and the amendment of statutes are matters for Parliament … it is sufficient to say that a meaning which departs substantially from a fundamental feature of an Act of Parliament is likely to [...]. This is especially so where the departure has important practical repercussions which the court is not equipped to evaluate.'

Answer
have crossed the boundary between interpretation and amendment

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
In Re S (Children) and Re W (Care Orders) [2002] UKHL 10, the Court of Appeal undertook a very radical reinterpretation of provisions of the Children Act 1989. The House of Lords reversed this: the opinion of Lord Nicholls provides very useful early guidance on the use of the HRA 1998, s 3:

'In applying section 3 courts must be ever mindful of this outer limit. The Human Rights Act reserves the amendment of primary legislation to Parliament … Interpretation of statutes is a matter for the courts; the enactment of statutes, and the amendment of statutes are matters for Parliament … it is sufficient to say that a meaning which departs substantially from a fundamental feature of an Act of Parliament is likely to [...]. This is especially so where the departure has important practical repercussions which the court is not equipped to evaluate.'

Answer
?

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
In Re S (Children) and Re W (Care Orders) [2002] UKHL 10, the Court of Appeal undertook a very radical reinterpretation of provisions of the Children Act 1989. The House of Lords reversed this: the opinion of Lord Nicholls provides very useful early guidance on the use of the HRA 1998, s 3:

'In applying section 3 courts must be ever mindful of this outer limit. The Human Rights Act reserves the amendment of primary legislation to Parliament … Interpretation of statutes is a matter for the courts; the enactment of statutes, and the amendment of statutes are matters for Parliament … it is sufficient to say that a meaning which departs substantially from a fundamental feature of an Act of Parliament is likely to [...]. This is especially so where the departure has important practical repercussions which the court is not equipped to evaluate.'

Answer
have crossed the boundary between interpretation and amendment
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
a matter for the courts; the enactment of statutes, and the amendment of statutes are matters for Parliament … it is sufficient to say that a meaning which departs substantially from a fundamental feature of an Act of Parliament is likely to <span>have crossed the boundary between interpretation and amendment. This is especially so where the departure has important practical repercussions which the court is not equipped to evaluate.' <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions

Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.